Garrett MS 143 fols. 21
v– 26
v, Princeton University
Master Thesis Philology Student name: Alexander Miesen Student number: s1442236 Date: 12th April 2017 First reader: Dr. K.A. Murchison Second reader: Dr. L.M.D. Caon
Table of Contents
Preface ... 1
History and previous ownership MS ... 3
Description of the manuscript ... 4
Contents of Garrett MS 143 ... 9
Sources ... 10
Manuscript Lineage ... 30
John Wycliffe and the Lollards ... 38
Scribe/Author ... 40 Audience ... 43 Language ... 45 Syntax ... 52 Dialect ... 53 Narrative Structure ... 55
Critical edition of Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v- 26v ... 58
Textual Notes ... 63
Commentary ... 67
Glossary ... 69
Works Cited ... 72
Appendix A: Diplomatic transcription of Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v ... 74
Preface
Presented here is an edition of a devotional treatise on the seven deadly sins from Princeton University Library, Garrett MS 143, fols. 21v – 26v. This treatise is yet unpublished. The text, referred to here as The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, deals with each sin individually, before a brief remedy is recommended for each one. Morton Bloomfield describes The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins as ‘an abbreviated moral tractate on the chief sins’ (215-16).
The research presented here shows, for the first time, that there is a strong relationship between The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text and a text edited by Thomas Arnold found in, Select English Works of John Wyclif, which will be referred to here as The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. This edition was created by Arnold using three manuscripts: Trinity College Dublin c. v .6, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 647., and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 273. The relationship between the two texts had not been previously discovered, and there is no mention of the distinctions between the two by Morton Bloomfield or Peter S. Jolliffe, both of whom have spent much time dealing with seven deadly sins theology.
The start of the major exploration of the theology of the seven deadly sins was
conducted by Bloomfield. His research demonstrates that the sins were something that man in the Middle Ages dealt with on a daily basis; they were factual part of life (Bloomfield xiv).
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 legislated in its ninth canon, Omnis utriusque sexus, that Christians confess their sins once a year (Biller 7). Thus it was of vital importance that people knew what to confess, and what sins there were. Devotional manuscripts
containing a treatise on the seven deadly sins (such as that found in the Garrett MS 143), would have been used to help laymen understand the different types of sin and how one could redeem oneself, as was required concerning education during this period.
As discussed below, the treatise edited by Arnold, and demonstrated here to be related to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, is generally considered Wycliffite; is the seven deadly sins treatise found in Garrett MS 143 therefore a Wycliffe treatise? My analysis of the said
treatise reveals this not to be the case. As discussed at greater length below, the treatises were most likely derived from a common source, but The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins does not contain any of the Wycliffite elements found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins. The seven deadly sins text found in Garrett MS 143 is therefore its own tract, although it contains many similarities to the Wycliffite seven deadly sins text edited by Arnold.
This edition has been designed for the use of undergraduate students who have some experience in Middle English. It has been provided with textual notes, a glossary, and explanatory notes, in order to help students understand the text as a whole. This edition also provides a preliminary investigation into a small section of the manuscript. The research presented here shows the uniqueness of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins; as such, a full edition of the treatise is worth while for scholarly research and may provide further reference for future research on seven deadly sins material and treatises.
History and previous ownership MS
Don Skemer, drawing on the work of Ronald N. Walpole, writes that Garrett MS 143 was once bound with five or more manuscripts written in Anglo-Norman dating from around 1250. The other manuscripts were larger, and rebound separately in the nineteeth century by Francis Beford. These manuscripts can be found in the British Library (London). The Garrett manuscript belonged to Sir Henry Hope Edwards, a British book collector, before being sold on the 20th – 23rd of May, 1901 at Christie’s bookshop (London). It was bought by Robert Garrett in 1902 and ‘put in deposit (no. 1459) in the Princeton University Library’ (Skemer 334). The manuscript was among several thousands of others gifted to the library by Robert Garrett in 1942 (Skemer 334).
Garrett was a businessman and banker from Baltimore, Maryland who after
graduating in 1897 and becoming a Princeton trustee in 1905, ‘embarked on a half a century of manuscript collecting’ (Skemmer xiii). Garrett considered manuscript collecting ‘a noble educational odyssey’ in which there was ‘joy in discovery and learning’ (Skemer xiv).
Description of the manuscript
A description of the manuscript based on first hand access to it is beyond the scope of this thesis; however, Skemer provides a detailed description of the manuscript. Skemer does not include all details about the manuscript, as this is not the aim of his book. As such, an attempt has been made here to include much more detail than Skemer about the folios that contain the seven deadly sins treatise (21v to 27v).
Material and layout:
The manuscript contains 51 vellum folios. The folio dimensions are 140 mm x 95mm and the dimension which the text covers is 60 mm x 85 mm (Skemer 333). The text on each page is separated from the margin by carefully ruled lines. The text is made up of 19 to 20 single column lines (Skemer 333) and is written in prose. In this manuscript, ruled guidelines have been drawn up but they appear to be quite rough and not entirely accurate. Christopher de Hamel states, “The smarter the book, the more elaborately it was ruled” (20), so the mistakes in ruling in this manuscript suggest that it was not intended to be overtly expensive. Pages are not equally lined up with each other nor are the ruled lines completely straight. Prickmarks can be found on the majority of folios, as well as ‘double prickmarks for the penultimate horizontal’ (Skemer 333). Furthermore, there are ruling lines in brown ink, as well as, ‘single and horizontal bounding lines, extending almost to the page edge or beyond’ (Skemer 333). Vertical lines have been drawn to indicate the width of the text, however the scribe often breaks out of lines (see fig. 1).
Fig. 1: fol.21v vertical line break out
Catchwords can be found in the lower right hand margin on a few verso folios. Catchwords indicate the last page of a gathering (Hamel 42), although this does not always appear to be the case in the Garrett MS. While catchwords found on fols. 3v (beuche), 11v (is), 19v (to), and 35v (how) each have their corresponding catchwords correctly located on the following recto, this is not true for all catchwords. The word, ‘worlde’ appears as a
catchword on 27v, and yet it is not located on the following page. This is most likely a scribal insertion filling in the missing word of the last line on its respective folio. The context of the final line of 27v, and the first line on 28r suggest this to be a correction made by the scribe so the collective line would read: ‘and alle oþer wrechedenesse of þis [worlde] þat ben charmes of þe feende’.
Quire signatures can be found in the bottom right hand corner of the recto folios (see fig. 2 and fig. 3)
Fig. 2: quire (ai) fol.4r Fig. 3: quire (biiii) fol.15r
These are a couple of the only surviving quire signatures as many were trimmed during the binding process; as such some of the quire signatures have been rewritten by a modern hand (see fig. 4)
Fig. 4: (ci) fol.20r
The manuscript is decorated with blue 2- to 3- line initials with red flourishes
(Skemmer 333) at the beginning of texts, such as the flourish on the ‘S’ for ‘Siþen’(see fig. 5). Flourishes also appear within some sections of the texts, such as the ‘I’ of ‘Ira’. The initial ‘S’, of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, is two lines high while the initial ‘I’ is six lines high, as such these are the only two letters to extend beyond a single line in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. There are also alternating red and blue paraph marks within the text (see fig. 6). However, the lack of elaborate illumination indicates that the manuscript was not intended as a display piece.
Fig. 5: Siþen fol.21v Fig. 6: paraph fol.21v
The bindings of the manuscript are brown morocco over pasteboard, and the binding title reads ‘A Treatise of the Ten Commandments. MS’, a reference to the first treatise in the manuscript (Skemer 333). The book was bound by a nineteeth century book binder called Franics Beford, as is evident by the front turn-in which reads ‘Bound by F. Bedford’.
In The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, each sin is introduced with a Latin rubric in red. There is more space surrounding the sins of Cupitidas, Gula, and Luxuria than
these Latin rubrics stand out. Intriguingly, the Latin rubrics’ ‘Gula’ and ‘Luxuria’ are placed a few words within their respective sections and not at the start of them. Perhaps this was done because the scribe was copying another manuscript with the same layout. Alternatively, the scribe may have had the intention to start each sin with Latin rubrics but mistakenly forgot to place ‘Gula’ and ‘Luxuria’ at the start.
The folios containing The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins contain a few additions from a much later date. Skemer notes that there are letters of the alphabet written in a Humanistica cursiva hand of the sixteenth century in the margins of fols. 25r and 26r (Skemer 334). On fol. 25r the letters are found at the top of the folio; these start at ‘a’ and stop at ‘l’. Fol. 26r has the complete alphabet written along the right-hand side margin; the hand appears to be the same as that on fol. 25r (Skemer 333). A seventeenth-century court hand in the top margin of fol. 26r refers to the Dean and Chapter of Wells Cathedral, Somerset County. (see fig. 7) (Skemer 334) (for a discussion of Somerset see dialect)
Fig. 7: (“Ad Curiam manerij Commorum Ceta[nis?] et capit[a]lis Ecclesie cath[edralis] Wellen[sis] tent[um] apud Chittelham’”) (Skemer 334)
In the top margin of fol. 24v appears a series of letterforms but the exact identity of this symbol is unknown. It may be simply ‘doodling’ by either the scribe or the sixteeth or seventeeth century person mentioned above (see fig. 9).
Fig. 9: unknown symbol
Numbers in the left or right margins, such as a ‘1’ on fol. 22r, indicate the start of a sin, whereby numbers one through to seven appear in the treatise for each sin. These scribal numbers can be found in other sections of the manuscript. Separate numbers, one through to ten, appear next to their respective commandments in the Ten Commandments treatise found in fols. 29v-34r. They appear to be in the style of the scribe, however the similarities could be coincidental and the numbers may have been added later (see Fig. 9 for an example). They may have been used as a quick reference for the reader to find a sin or commandment depending on which section the reader needed. There is also a more modern style of
numbering, possibly added later, appearing to be from the same hand as the sixteenth century letters found on fols, 25r and 26r (see fig. 9 and 10 for a comparision); however, numbers ‘1’ and ‘6’ are missing. The absence could be a result of the ink fading.
Contents of Garrett MS 143
The contents of Garrett MS 143 have been provided by Skemer. The manuscript contains two treatises on the Ten Commandments, but these are different texts. The works described below as the ‘Song of Saying the Best’, ‘The song of Thank God for All’, and the ‘Song of Bi a wode’ are all written in verse.
1. A Treatise on the Ten Commandments 1r – 21v
2. A Treatise on the Seven Deadly Sins 21v – 26v
3. A Treatise on the 5 senses 26v – 29v
4. Treatise on the Ten Commandments 29v– 34r
5. A Compilation of excerpts on corporal works of mercy from chapter 2 of a Wycliffite treatise
on the corporal and spiritual works of mercy 34r – 35r 6. An Excerpt on the spiritual works of mercy
from chapter 7 of a wycliffite treatise
on corporal and spiritual works of mercy 35r – 35v 7. A Treatise on the Five sources of self knowledge 36r – 36v
8. A Treatise on The nature of man 36v – 38r
9. The Trental of St. Gregory 38v – 44v
10. Song of Saying the Best. 44v – 46v
11. Song of Thank God for All 47r – 49r
Sources
There is no record of the seven deadly sins treatise from the Garrett MS 143 in Albert Hartung’s A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, nor is there any mention of the treatise in Jolliffe’s A Check-list of Middle English Prose Writings of Spiritual Guidance. As previously noted, The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins shares a relationship with the Wycliffite seven deadly sins text edited by Arnold (the full text of Arnold’s edition can be found in Select English Works of John Wyclif on pages 119 – 167). His edition, based the version of the text contained in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 647. MS, has been collated with a second copy of the text (contained in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 273 MS), and third copy (contained in Trinity College Dublin MS 245. c. v .6) (Arnold 119). A such as direct comparison between the manuscripts of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins and The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins is out of the question. Arnold claims that nearly all the contents of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 647. MS are either known or reputed to be by Wycliffe (119). Arnold suggests that the tract on the seven deadly sins was of Lollard origin, based on internal
evidence as well as the voice and ‘rough humour’ of Wycliffe supposedly echoed in the passage on church endowments (119). However, this attribution is uncertain; as scholars question the legitimacy of Arnold’s claim. Kenneth McFarlane, for example, finds most of Wycliffe’s work to be ‘impersonal’, and ‘rather humourless’ (xii). Furthermore, the text has been attributed to a pupil of Wycliffe—Nicholas Hereford (Workman 135;Winn 145; and Gothein 458 qtd. in Bloomfield 190)—due to the subject matter and dialect of the treatise (Jones 267-268 qtd. in Bloomfield 190).
The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins and The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins contain a number of similarities (despite the spelling, and dialectical variations between the two).
Given the significant similarities, some of which are passages that match word for word between the two texts, it is possible that The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text is also of Wycliffite origin, but this is highly unlikely, due to the lack of church slander, among other reasons discussed in this section.
A content comparison of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins and The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins reveals that they must share a common ancestor. The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins is richer in content, and dwarfs The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, but close analysis reveals similarties. For example, in the section on Pride, the opening line of each respective text appears as follows:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘Pride þat is þe first; is wicked loue of a manes hiȝnesse.’ (1.15)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘Pride is wicked liif of a monnis hynesse.’ (Arnold 121)
The lines are similar in wording. In fact, every sin’s respective opening line from The Garret
Seven Deadly Sins text can be found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. The next line
following the opening line of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text is as follows:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘and for sixe cause falliþ a man in pride.’ (Arnold 121)
In comparison, The Wycliffitte Seven Deadly Sins expands upon the idea of ‘monnis hynesse’. More detail is provided as well about the origin of pride with the ‘first aungel’:
Pride is wicked liif of a monnis hynesse. As God askes ordir in al þis worlde, so everich part of þis worlde ordeynes he to serve hym in a gode mesure, acordyng wiþ anoþer. And if mon or aungel passe þis mesure, þen he synnes in pride ageynes his God. And so hit is seide þat pride bygan wiþ first aungel þat wolde be even wiþ God; not þat ne Lucifer wiste þat God moste be above hym. Bot he coveyted an ordir in servise of God whiche þat God wolde not, bot oþer meke servise. And so hit semes þat iche mon synnes in pride in þat þat he synnes ageynes his God. And so for sex causes falles a mon in pride. (Arnold 121)
As previously mentioned, every sin in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text is filled with additional information relative to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. This information expands on ideas or provides small details; this can range between three words (as will be discussed below), a few lines (as depicted above), or a few passages. This idea is crucial, as many additional lines can be found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text that are not found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. For example, The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins
text lists the six principal causes of pride. The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text on the other hand, proceeds to go into great detail on the various types of pride, and ends the passage with remedies on how to treat each of these types. It is worth noting that the remedies found in this section of the treatise are not found at the end of the discussion of pride in The Garrett Seven
Deadly Sins text. In fact, none of the sins in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text end with the same lines as the sins in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text.
‘Wrath’ (as found in the The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text), for example, has an additional 247 lines: 16 lines scattered between lines 1.35 to 1.45 in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, and 231 lines which continue after the ending of Wrath at 1.45 in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. The most intriguing of these can be found in the section of
Greed, and even the smallest details of the extra information can raise a few questions. One of these can be found in the lines below:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘and bi þis, many man knowen her loue’ (1.58)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘And by þis, as Greggor seis, may men knowe hor owne luf.’ (148)
If the author of the Garrett text was using a source with similar words as that used for The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, then it looks as though ‘as Greggor seis’ was left out of the Garrett text intentionally. Another possibility is that author of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text added ‘as Greggor seis’ during the creation of the text, but this seems unlikely since it is the attribution for the ideas that follow it. If The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins was to be referred to before taking confession, then it would make sense that the text would have been condensed from its source. Perhaps this may be more to do with the overall style of the treatise found in the manuscript. Perhaps this keeps with the author’s purpose of keeping the treatise simple, and anything that was not necessary was left out. On the other hand, Stephen Morrison argues that in the ‘process of copying, scribes display a persistent willingness to depart from the text of their exemplars, to rewrite the text at various levels of complexity’ (120). This may account for the ‘extra’ lines found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text.
The Summa de Viciis by Guilielmus Peraldus was hugely influential and one of the ultimate sources for Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale. A comparison of Peraldus’ text to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins and to The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins reveals that it is also the ultimate source for both treatises. So, by comparing ‘extra’ lines found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly
Sins to the Summa de Viciis, the relationship between The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, and The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text can be established. In turn, this will help determine the relative relationships with The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. Since it is in English, the Parson’s Tale has also been included for comparison, although it is not in the line of descent between Peraldus and the seven deadly sins texts examined here.
An example of the relationship between The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins and the Summa de Viciis can be found in the following lines in the sin of Greed. Thus, the
relationship Summa de Viciis shares with The Parson’s Tale can be seen here too:
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘Ffor whoevere is avarous, he is ydolatroure, and makes worldly godes his God, and þat is a falsehed ageyne þo first
maundement of God, and worse þen lif of Paynym. And þerfore Seynt Poule calles ydolatrye of soche men service of mawmetis, as done heethen men.’ (Arnold 149)
Parson’s Tale: 'And certes, the sinne of Mawmetrye is the firste thing that god deffended in the ten comaundements, as bereth witnesse Exodi' (Petersen 67)
Summa de Viciis: ‘Quia autem avaricia sit idolatria vel Dei negatio
potest ostendi multipliciter. . . . secundo potest ostendi per hoc quod Deus precipit avaro ut nomen ejus non assumat in vanum, Exo., xx.’ (Petersen 67)
This short passage is an example of a few lines in the Arnold text that are ultimately taken from Peraldus but not found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, and this provides evidence to suggest The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text is not a descendant of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins. As discussed below in the section on envy, The Garrett Seven Deadly
Sins text has material from Peraldus not found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. One may therefore conclude that neither text is a direct descendent from one another, and The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins its own tract.
If one excludes the introduction and remedies, there at least 11-12 lines from the critical transcription of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text not found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. The longest of these can be found in the sin of Gluttony:
‘For þen þei kepen hem in mesure but hem bihoueþ for to be warre of excesse boþe of coste and bisynus. For ȝif þei in þese passen mesure þei synen in glotonye and maken hem…’ (1.67 – 1.69)
The existence of extra lines in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text suggests that the author could have copied these lines from a common source while The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text did not. Alternatively these may be lines invented by the author. The
introductions used by each respective treatise are very different, but similarities can be found. The main difference between the two is in the fullness and richness of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text’s introduction; it comprises a list of five forms of punishment for sin, as well as ‘the sin against the Holy Ghost’; both of these elements are not found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. Each treatise, however, does give the same enemies of the soul: the devil, the world, and man’s own body. The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text refers to these as ‘þre gostli enemyes’ (1.6) while The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text mentions how they ‘stiren hym to coveyte ageynes Gods wille’ (Arnold 121). Nevertheless, both texts then relate the Deadly Sins to these ghostly enemies.
The key difference between the introductions to each text is how they differentiate in their treatment of the sins wrath and avarice. Wrath and avarice appear only once in The
Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text’s introduction: wrath is the sin of the devil, and avarice the
sin of the world. However, both of these sins appear twice in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text: wrath is of the devil and of the world, while avarice is of the world and of man’s own body.
There are however two similarities between the two introductions which are quite striking.The first of these is the line ‘that neuer schal haue ende’ (1.8), which can be found in both treatises. This is one of the only two ‘matching’ lines in the introductions; however, the place where the line is found is different in each treatise. In The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, the said quotation is located before Saint John is mentioned, while in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text it is located after the Saint John reference. This brings us to the second interesting similarity in the introduction: a Biblical quotation from Saint John. The following quotation below gives the full words as mentioned in the Bible, but only a faction of it is used by both treatises:
‘For all thing that is in the world, is covetousness of flesh, and covetousness of eyes, and pride of life, which is not of the Father, but it is of the world’ (John ii. 16)
It is interesting how the author of each treatise uses the quotation in their respective treatise. The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text puts emphasis on the relationship between the sins, emphasizing the first part of the quotation; ‘coueytynge of þe flesche or coueytynge of þe iȝe or in pride of lijf’ (1.11 - 12). The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text uses the same biblical reference but puts emphasis on the latter part of the quotation where sin is mankind’s doing; ‘synne is made wiþoute God, as Seynt Jon seis.’(Arnold 120). Thus the same
Envy is the most unique sin in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text in that it has the least in common with The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. The opening line, as mentioned above, mimics The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text as does the next line (see 1.26, textual notes). This is where word-for-word similarities end with the exception of the message of being envious of your neighbour. The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text uses the fable of the envious man and the covetous man to depict the sin of envy, and how envy ‘dampnes hom’ (Arnold 130). The absence of this fable from the Garrett seven deadly sins text would suggest The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text author’s additional lines are his own creation. Perhaps he consulted another source to compile his section on envy. Since both texts are derived from a common exemplar, it can not be said with absolute certainity which text remains closer to the original.
The inclusion of slander towards the Church is only found in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, for The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text makes a more no attempt to do this. For the majority of sins, the discussion links the church to sin. Wrath mentions the great sin of the Pope, described as his encouragement of bloodshed among Christians (Arnold 141). The section on Greed discusses greed amonst priests (Arnold 150). Gluttony discusses
gluttony amongst the clergy and monks (Arnold 156). Lechery discusses lechery amongst the clergy. The first passage on the Church, for instance, is found in the sin of Envy shortly after the envious and covetous man fable (Arnold 129). Here the author divides the church into three classes: preachers, soldiers, and labourers (Arnold 130). Once the author has finished dividing and explaining the differences between the classes, he discusses each class in separate passages—envy among priests (Arnold 130), envy among lords and knights (Arnold 131) and envy among labourers Arnold 132).
The author of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text invites the reader to think and be analytical. There are direct questions asked to the reader, enticing him or her to ponder his or
her own thoughts on a subject. The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, on the other hand, does not contain any direct questions. The author may in fact be expressing his own opinion in The Wycliffitte Seven Deadly Sins text with ‘Here me þenkes’ another element not found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. A direct question and the author’s opinion are evident in the sin of Wrath:
Select English Works of John Wyclif: Here me þenkes þat þo fende disseyves mony men by falsenes of his resouns, and by his fals principlis. Ffor what mon þat hafs witte connot se þis fallas? (Arnold 137)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: Lord, what honour falles to a knyght, for he killes mony men? (Arnold 139)
In contrast, the only moment the author addresses the reader in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text is in the remedies. Here words such as ‘þou’ and ‘þe’ are directed towards the reader; ‘And yf þou hast ben hateful and enuyouse. Schap þe for to be in loue and charite to God and þyne euen cristen.’ (1.89) The remedies are unique to the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, as they do not appear in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, or any other source consulted here in such as condensed format. It is also not clear whether these words are the author’s ‘own’ remedies or if these have also been taken from another source.
While it has been made clear that The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text shares an ultimate source with The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, other analogues have been
consulted and used for comparison. In order to find which analogues were used to create this treatise, a few of the most popular literary works of the Middle Ages have been considered. As previously mentioned, the Summa de Viciis, and The Parson’s Tale have been used for
comparision. Skemer points out that The Book of Vices and Virtues is the closest printed text to the treatise on the Ten Commandments found at the start of the Garrett MS 143 (332). As such, The Book of Vices and Virtues, a fourteenth-century Middle English translation of the Somme le Roi, has also been considered as an analogue.
None of the descriptions of sins in the other texts closely resemble the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, for much of the individual sins branch out in similar fashion to The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. However, there are some resemblances between these other texts and the Garrett text, as can be seen in the comparisons below. Since all of the materials here deal with the subject matter of the deadly sins it is not surprising to find parallels between the works found here. The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text is the shortest in terms of word count in comparison to the others.
Other potential analogues have been considered, including ‘the Litil Tretys’ by Richard Lavynham, but the differences between this text and the Garrett seven deadly sins text is great. The Cursor Mundi, Robert of Brunne’s Handlyng Sin, William Langland’s Piers Plowman have also been taken into consideration but appear not to have much resemblance to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. The seven deadly sins tradition can also be found in Ancrene Wisse, but once again the lack of similarities means that it is not a viable source for The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text.
The introduction to the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text mentions Saint John, where Saint John discusses the sins coming from the ‘flesche’, ‘iȝe’ or ‘lijf’. Saint John is also known as John the Evangelist from the biblical Book of Revelation where he has a vision of a beast with seven heads. The idea of a beast with seven heads was a common feature in tracts on the seven deadly sins as a metaphor for the sins. The Book of Vices and
Virtues in one of many examples using this metaphor. Saint John the Evangelist is mentioned in The Parson’s Tale before the Parson deals with the deadly sins, but neither of the
quotations used reflects that of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. The Summa de Viciis does not mention Saint John in its introduction, thus given how influential Peraldus was on the tradition, the absence of this passage in Peraldus suggests that there is no analogue for The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins. With the exception of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins, each analogue introduces the sins in different ways.
Pride
The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text appears to show six ‘causes’ of pride: ‘Grace, kynde, strengthe, bodily beaute, fortune’ (which are also in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text), but does not elaborate upon these causes. Lists of the causes of pride are found in the other texts examined here but with noticeable differences. The other texts have ‘nature’ as a general heading, and ‘kynde, strengthe, and bodily beaute’ are subspecies of nature. The causes of pride are elaborated on most fully in The Book of Vices and Virtues, where these are described as the three branches of Vain Gloria (the fifth type of branch of pride) (Nelson Francis 19). The text explores this branch using 38 lines—more than any of the other texts. The Summa de Viciis shows some similarities to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text with sins of ‘nature, fortune, and gratie’ while mentioning the body sinning in ‘fortitudo (strength) and ‘pulchritudo’ (beauty)(The Parson’s Tale portrays the same division of these elements); these similarities suggest Peraldus’ text is the closer of the two in terms of source material for The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins.
One key difference between The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text and The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text is in the discussion of Lucifer in the sin of Pride. The story of Lucifer’s fallout with God and his subsequent transformation into the Devil is found in The
Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, but it does not appear in the Parson’s tale, Summa de Viciis or The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text.
Envy
As previously mentioned, the most significant differences between The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins and The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins are apparent when comparing their treatments of the sin of envy. The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text does, however, have a more direct link to The Parson’s Tale, and the Tractatus de Viciis, as can be seen in the lines below:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘he haþ sorowe and for þenkynge of his neiȝbores prosperite’ (1.28)
The Parson’s Tale: ‘sorwe of other mannes goodnesse and of his prosperitee’
(Petersen 47)
Summa de Viciis: ‘tristitiam in prosperis.’ (Petersen 47)
And once again in the following lines below:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘For to harme his neiȝbore. And þus enuyouse men ben children of þee fende.’ (1.31)
The Parson’s Tale: ‘joye of other mannes harm; and that is proprely lyk to the devel.’ (Petersen 47)
Summa de Viciis: ‘quasi gaudium freneticorum qui de hoc gaudent unde flendum esset; immo gaudium diabolicum est cum sit de malo alterius.’ (Petersen 47)
What is most interesting about these lines is the fact that they are not found in
Arnold’s treatise, which indicates that The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins is not derived from The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins.
Wrath
A common element in all of the treatments of the sin on wrath examined here is that it the sin appears in two forms: good and bad. While none of the texts are word for word matches with The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, all the texts make a distinction between two types of wrath. These opposing ‘ires’ can be traced back to the Peraldus, the ultimate source for all the texts:
Summa de Viciis: ‘quedam ira que bona est… Est alia ira que mala est.’ (Petersen 49)
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘But þer ben two ires good yre and yuel’ (1.33 - 1.34)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘Bot þere ben two ires, gode ire and yvel.’ (Arnold 134)
Parson’s Tale: ‘Ire is in two maneres; that oon of hem is good, and that other is wikked.’ (Petersen 49)
Vice and Virtues: ‘þer is an ire þat goode holy men han aȝens euele, … þer is a-noþer þat is synne wel gret.’ (25)
However the species differ between the texts; there is evidence of two traditions that have been modified. Vices and Virtues deals with the evil type of wrath, and depicts the four ‘werres þat a schrewe haþ’: with himself, with God, with his inferiors, and with his
neighbours (Nelson Francis 26). The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, on the other hand, states that ‘Thre harmes fallen in ire’ (1.39); when man ‘loste boþe skille and resoun’, ‘no hert of charite’ and, when ‘spoyliþ a man of goodis withouten forþe’. Vices and Virtues briefly mentions ‘good’ wrath which is ‘vertue to destroie wiþ yuele’. Similarly, The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text briefly discusses what Good ire is, but suggests that ‘good’ wrath is ‘wroþ in godis cause and not to venge his own cause, but for to venge godis wrong’ (1.34); The
Parson’s Tale takes a different approach and makes a distinction between, ‘two maneres’:
‘sodeyn Ire or hastif Ire’ but refers to the causes and manners above as ‘offspring’ (Petersen 50). In essence, all the texts deal with the same subject matter but portray the information differently by creating different sub-genres to categorize ‘evil’ and ‘good’ wrath.
Sloth
Sloth, at seven lines long, is one of the shortest of the descriptions of deadly sin in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text. It is shorter than the treatment of sloth in any of the
analogues, including The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins. The Garrett text has only one point in common with its analogues:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘ydelnesse is moche plesynge to þe fende. And here for seiþ þe gospel þat þe fend aspyeþ where seruantis of a manes house ben ydil and prowde’ (1.48- 1.49)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘ydelnesse… and þus plesis þo fende. And herfore seis þo Gospel, þat þo fende aspyes wheþer servauntes of a monnis house ben ydel and proude’ (Arnold 142)
Parson’s Tale: ‘ydelnesse, that is the yate of all harmes. An ydel man is lyk to a place that hath no walles; the develes may entre on every syde…’ (Petersen 64)
Vices and Virtues: ‘for whan a man is ydele and þe deuel fyndeþ hym ydel, he him setteþ a-swiþe to werke,’ (Nelson Francis 27)
Summa de Viciis: ‘Est etiam ociosus velut castrum absque muro … Homo ociosus non tamen uni hosti expositus est, sed etiam pluribus’ (Petersen 64)
The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins section on sloth revolves heavily around idleness, the species of sloth that is introduced in the text by the quotation above. The other sources have different descriptions of idleness, and provide more detail about the sin of Sloth. Vices and Virtues lists idleness as one of the causes of evil (slackness, softness, idleness, heaviness, lying in sin, and pusillanimity being the others). The Parson’s Tale also includes idleness as a
cause for sloth, but its other causes such as, somnolence and negligence, are not found in Vices and Virtues.
Greed
The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text’s section on greed is similar to that on sloth in terms of similarities to other analogues. It, too, has some ideas in common with The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text but has very little in common with the other analogues. This is significant for two reasons: it reveals just how closely related the treatise must be to The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text and how heavily related they must be to the distant manuscript used a
common source. In fact, The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins and The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text have the most words in common for this sin than for any other sin, as can be seen in a side by side comparision of the two:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘The fyueþe synne of þese seven is clepid coueytise, or auarice of worldli goodis, and marreþ many men; and hit falliþ to men whan þei coueiten to moche godis of þis world, and to litil goostli goodis. And desire, with bisynesse, maye iuge men in þis; for what a man more desireþ, he travayliþ more aboute hit and soroweþ more for losse of hit, þat of aþynge lasse loued’ (1.53 – 1.58)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘Þe fiffe synne of þese seven is cald covetise, or avarice of worldly godis, and marris mony men; and hit fallis to men when þei coveiten to myche godes of þo worlde, and to litil gostly godes. And desire, wiþ bisynes, may juge men in þis, ffor what a mon desires he travels more about hit, and sorowis more of losse of hit, þen of a þing less loved.’ (Arnold 148)
Aside from The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, the analogue that comes closest to the wording here is Vices and Virtues, but it does not come as close as The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text:
Vices and Virtues: ‘Auerice is an euele ordeyned to loue good of þis world.’ (Nelson Francis 30)
All three texts make a point of expressing how greed is a love of worldly possessions. A clear link can be found in the other analogues, with reference to Saint Paul, and the ‘root’, suggesting a closer link between Vice and Virtues, The Parson’s Tale and Tractatus de Vicciis. These lines are not found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text nor The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text.
Vices and Virtues: ‘Þe synne of couetise and auarice, þat is roote of alle yueles, as seiþ seynt Poule.’ (Nelson Francis 30)
The Parson’s tale: ‘of which sinne seith seint Paule, that “the rote of alle harmes is Coveitise’ (Petersen 66 - 67)
Summa de Viciis: ‘Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas. Alia littera habet: Radix omnium malorum est Avaricia’ (Petersen 66 - 67)
Saint Paul is mentioned in the sin gluttony. This reference is found in all the possible sources consulted here. This is remarkable given the other discrepancies between the texts. This reveals how much the ultimate source, Summa de Viciis, impacted all the analogues consulted here:
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘Seiþe seynt poule a fals God of here wombe.’ (1.69)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘And herfore seis Seynt Poule þat glotouns ben oute of þo feith, sith þei maken hor wombe hor God’ (Arnold 156)
Parson’s Tale: ‘‘Manye,’ seith seint Paul, ‘goon … of whiche hir wombe is hir god’ (Petersen 70)
Summa de Viciis: ‘juxta illud Apostoli ad Phil., iii…Quorum deus venter est’ (Petersen 70)
Vice and Virtues: ‘seynt Poule seiþ þei slen here soules, for þei maken here god of here wombes’ (Nelson Francis 50)
Lechery
The closest text to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text (as well as to The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text) for the sin of lechery is the Summa de Vicciis. While the Parson’s Tale and Vices and Virtures also contain the same manners of lechery, the appearance of some words,
such as ‘simple’, found in some analogues and not others suggest that three texts below have a stronger connection.
Summa de Vicciis: ‘Prima est simplex fornicatio; secunda, stuprum… tertia, adulterium… quarta est incestum… quinta est peccatum contra naturam.’ (Petersen 72)
Garrett MS 143 fols. 21v – 26v: ‘First … þis is called sympil fornicacoun. The secunde … auowetrie ... The þridde … lecherie with virgins. The ferþe … is bitwene kynne
and affynyte, … The fyfte … sodoom.’ (1.73 – 1.81)
Select English Works of John Wyclif: ‘Ffirst, … þis þo chapitre calles a symple fornicacioun… Þo secounde… avoutrye,… Þo thridde … lecchorye wiþ virgyns … Þo fourt … is bytwene kyn, or ellis bytwene affinite… Þo fifft … Sodome.’ (Arnold 161 – 162)
The Remedies
Each analogue examined here contains remedies against the seven deadly sins; however, no two texts are alike in their depiction of the remedies, and there is more variation between these texts in the treatment of the remedies than in the treatment of the sins. For instance, the remedies can be found in different locations within their respective treatise or manuscript. The remedies in the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text can be found towards the end,
straight after the closing words of lechery, with no clear ending to function as a conclusion to the passage. A division is much more apparent in the other analogues. The Parson’s Tale introduces the remedies to a specific sin by introducing it in a header; Gluttony, for example, begins with the following header: Remedium contra peccatum Gule, before the author
introduces remedies such as abstinence and moderation. The length of the passage of the remedy is determined by the length of each sin. So, the longest passage is on lechery while the shortest passage is on Gluttony. The remedies in the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text are treated differently. Each sin has a single line dedicated to its respective remedy.
Vices and Virtues takes a similar approach to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins. Once all of the sins have been discussed a closing line is delivered: ‘Here endeþ þe seuene dedly synnes and alle here braunches’ (68). The text moves onto very elaborate and detailed methods for remedies, and for the prevention of sin; these include: how to ‘lerne to dye’ (68) (understanding that life on earth is brief), ‘schal lerne to hate synne’(71), ‘to do wel and lyue wel’(73), and ‘how a man comeþ to a good ende’ (74) to name but a few.
The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins is short, simple, and concise in comparison to the other analogues considered for this thesis. The remedies at the end are an example of this. For a Christian it would have been the perfect source for knowing what to do should he or she be about to confess; a simple accessible treatise on what do to do to prevent eternal damnation.
Manuscript Lineage
To find the exact lineage of the manuscript is not without its complications; one must take into consideration that the existing editions of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, Vice and Virtues, and the Parson’s tale have all been produced by collating various manuscripts, as well as the fact that Vices and Virtues is a translation of Somme le Roi. However, through the careful analysis of the research provided above, the relationship between The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text and the analogues can be plotted out. A genealogical diagram has been provided to illustrate these relationships (see fig. 11). Based on the discussion above, neither The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text or The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text appear to have any direct relation to one another, but given that each has lines matching Summa de Viciis not found in the other, one can assume both ultimately stem from this source.
Description of the hand
With the growing importance of universities as well as the church’s increasing emphasis on teaching laymen, the demand for books was on the rise from the mid twelfth century onwards (Parkes xiii). This created a demand for scribes to replicate popular texts such as those on the seven deadly sins. The ease and speed at which scribes wrote became just as important as the drafting of documents (Parkes xiii). As such a different style of writing was introduced from the mid twelfth century onward. Indeed, as Malcolm Parkes puts it:
For finer-quality manuscripts, such as liturgical books in which the appearance of the book was a most important consideration, the scribes developed an elaborate, highly
calligraphic ‘display’ script known as ‘Textura’ (Parkes xiii).
The written hand around this century became increasingly‘squarer’, as well as more compact, and increasingly elaborate in the treatment of minims (Brown 80). A hierarchy developed and different degrees of formality were employed depending on the requirements of the manuscript (Parkes xviii).
The Garret MS 143 is written in one hand. Skemer describes the hand as follows:
Textualis semi-quadrata. The letter y is dotted. Tironian et crossed with vertical harline penstrokes on either side. (Skemer 333)
While his description does appear to be correct, it does not account for all the nuances of the hand. The hand appears to be Textura but with abundant influences of Bastard
Brown, ‘Bastard Anglicana enjoyed great popularity in England throughout s. xiv –xv for use in lower to middle grade books’ (100). There are alphabetic features that help determine the scriptura.
Brown indicates Textualis semi-quadrata was often used for the less formal or luxurious literary and devotional manuscripts of the central Middle Ages (86). The grade of the script (semi-quadrata) is determined by the treatment of the bottoms of the minims which have sporadically applied feet to some minims, whilst others are simply rounded off. This can been seen in the letters such as ‘m’ and ‘n’ (see fig. 12 and 13) The straight-sided double compartment ‘a’ can be seen in the figures below.
Fig. 12: Rounded off minims Fig. 13: Minims with feet
The angular compression of the bow of the round ‘d’ descending to the left is a trait of Textura, as can be seen in ‘bodli’ (see fig. 14) (Brown 84). Notice the pronounced biting of bows of the letter ‘b’ and ‘o’ found in the same word, another Textura trait (Diringer 311).
The scribes employ both the ‘2’-shaped ‘r’ and a short-r, although the scribe never employs the ‘2’-shaped ‘r’ in initial position. Below is an example where the scribe has used both forms in the same word (see fig. 18)
Fig. 18: short-r and ‘2-shaped’ r
As previously mentioned, elements of Anglicana script can be found in the hand. Parkes in, English Cursive Book Hands of 1250 – 1500, provides details and plates of
examples of Anglicana, and using these, one can draw comparisions to the hand in the Garrett manuscript. For example, the double compartment form of the letter ‘g’ in the Garrett
manuscript, which descends slightly below the written line and resembles the number ‘8’, resembles the example given in Parkes(Parkes xv)(see fig. 15) .The right-side flourishes of the letter ‘w’ are strong characteristics of this style of hand (see Fig. 16)(Parkes 8).
Fig. 15: Anglicana ‘g’ Fig. 16: Anglicana ‘w’
Both versions of ‘s’ (long and short) are employed by the scribe of the Garret MS. The long-s is a trait common in bastard Anglicana (Parkes 8). This feature can be seen in the initial position of ‘synnus’ (see fig. 17). The long-s is never found in final position in the Garrett MS (the scribe uses the long-s in medial position as well). The short-s is employed in the final position, adopting here the shape of a modern ‘capital’ ‘s’.
Introduction to the text
Literary tradition/genre
The seven deadly sins have a long history and it would be beyond the scope of this edition to include every detail associated with the tradition. Much of the information provided here is derived from Morton W. Bloomfield’s important book on the seven deadly sins tradition. I have also consulted Van Zutphen’s introduction to A Litil Tretys, which presents
Bloomfield’s findings in a condensed format. A summary of the major factors which have influenced the seven deadly sins’ evolution, with particular regard to the Garrett MS 143, has been provided below.
The origins of the sins can be traced back to the Hellenistic Age; Van Zutpten,
drawing on the work of Jacques-Paul Migne, writes, ‘the first orthodox Christian who clearly deals with the idea of the Sins as a group is Evagrius Ponticus (d.c. 400), a hermit in the Egyptian desert. The Sins are dealt with in his work Περί τών οκτώ λογισµών προς 'Avaτoλov’(Migne xl qtd. in Van Zutphen vii). Evagrius saw the sins as, ‘basic evils
threatening the religious life of cenobites and hermits’ (Van Zupthen vii). He listed the sins as: ‘gula, luxuria, avaritia, tristitia, ira, acedia (or accidia), vana Gloria, superbia, an eightfold sequence.’ (Van Zutphen vii)
According to Bloomfield it was then John Cassian (c. 360-435) who brought the sins to the West. While in Egypt he wrote two of his principal works: De institutis coenbiorum and Collationes, both of which discus eight sins. His sequence known as glaitavs follows the pattern: gula, luxuria, avaritia, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, and superbia. Bloomfield finds that Cassain’s sequence resembles that of Evagrius (despite a few differences) but Cassain does not attribute his sequence to Evagrius (Bloomfield 71).
Migne discusses the important role of St. Gregory the Great in seven deadly sin theology:
Most important of all, however, for the history of the Sins in the Middle Ages is St. Gregory the Great (c.540- 604). His discussion of the Sins is to be found in the commentary on the Book of Job, entitled Moralia.(Migne 620-22 qtd. in Van Zutphen vii).
One of the biggest changes introduced by Gregory was with regard to Superbia; it remained the root of all sins but was placed, ‘outside of Gregory’s list’(van Zutphen vii). The new sequence of the sins was: vana gloria, ira, invidia, tristitia, avaritia, gula, luxuria (van Zutphen vii). Bloomfield comments on Gregory’s influence on the tradition,‘Although this work was written for monks, it achieved such general popularity that it was chiefly
responsible for broadening the application of the Sins so that they were no longer considered primarily monastic but became part of the general theological and devotional tradition.’ (Bloomfield 72).
Superbia took the place of vana gloria, and he added superbia to the beginning of the list (moving gula and luxuria to the end), yet kept it separated from the other sins as the root of all sins (Bloomfield 72). According to Bloomfield, Gregory, ‘added invidia to the number and merged tristitia and acedia under the former name’ (Bloomfield 71). This meant that the final sequence of the Gregorian list became siiaagl: superbia, ira, invidia, avaritia, acedia, gula, and luxuria (Bloomfield 72). Garrett MS 143 follows this sequence although there is no explicit mention of pride being the root of the other sins.
A third tradition appeared in the thirteenth century and Bloomfield suggests that it was established by the canonist Henry of Susa or Ostia, although Bloomfield is uncertain of this as he does not find any direct evidence for it (Bloomfield 86). The so-called Ostiensic list comprises: superbia, avaritia, luxuria, ira, gula, invidia, and accidia (saligia) (Bloomfield
86); but ‘the Gregorian list was the most influential in the West, and prevailed, with slight modification, for a long time, even after the saligia list was popularised. Dante, Chaucer, Gower, and most of the important medieval writers used the siiaagl formula or some variant of it’. (Bloomfield 73)
The significance of the three separate sequences is debatable; some scholars assume that a standardised concept of the sins must have existed while others scholars believe that ‘absolute freedom reigned’ (Bloomfield 105). According to Bloomfield, ‘Variations within any of the three divisions are usually of little significance, but the number, order, and specific sins which indicate the three different traditions may, on the other hand, be of considerable significance’ (Bloomfield 105). Unfortunately, the Garrett MS 143 sequence (siiaagl) appears not to have too much value in determining the sources of the text due to the
popularity of the siiaagl sequence in the Middle Ages. Since the treatise sequence adheres to the saligia order, the dating the manuscript to after the thirteenth century appears to be correct.
The four mendicant orders in the thirteenth century were responsible for the popular preaching that flourished at the time, whereby ‘the main contents of sermons were defined by the Council of Lambeth in 1281, under Archbishop John Peckham’ (Van Zutphen ix),
ordered in, ‘the ninth canon, Ignorantia Sacerdotum’ (Reeves 41). Van Zutphen explains the significance of this as the Council ‘decreed that the people were to be instructed, in the vernacular at least four times a year, in six fundamental points of the faith’ (Van Zutphen ix). One of these points was the seven deadly sins. This legislation (combined with the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council) led to a new interest in religious texts, such as the treatise on the seven deadly sins in Garrett MS 143, during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. A few of these texts have been mentioned in the sources section of this edition.
Drawing from the the Old English Dictionary (OED), Van Zutphen believes the first appearance of the word,‘deadly’ in reference to the sins, in English, can been see in Ayenbite of Inwyt, which dates to 1340 (Van Zutphen xxiii). The phrase “deadly sins” is a rare
occurance before the fourtheenth century (Bloomfield 44); in fact Solomon Schimmel sheds light on this subject explaining, ‘the expression ‘seven deadly sins’ is actually a misnomer that resulted from popular confounding of mortal sins with capital or cardinal sins. The seven deadly sins can be mortal or venial’ (Schimmel 22). The sheer amount of material on the seven deadly sins that has survived to the present day is staggering. One only needs to think of some of the most famous works of Middle English literature to see the popularity of the seven deadly sins; they received extensive treatment in The Ayenbite of Inwyt, Robert Mannyng’s Handlying Synne, Cursor Mundi, William Langland’s Piers Plowman, John Gower’s Confession Amantis, and Geoffrey Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale, to name a few.
John Wycliffe and the Lollards
Given the similarities between The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins and the reputed Wycliffite seven deadly sins text (see Sources), a short section has been provided here on John Wycliffe, Lollards, and the their relation to the Garrett manuscript and treatise. Skemer identifies two Wycliffite texts within the Garett manuscript, ‘A compilation of excerpts on corporal works of mercy from chapter 2 of a Wycliffite treatise on corporal and spiritual works of mercy, 34r – 35r’ and an ‘Excerpt on the spiritual works of mercy from chapter 7 of a Wycliffite treatise on corporal and spiritual works of mercy, 35r – 35v’(Skemmer 332) (see Contents of the Garrett MS 143), basing his findings on Arnold’s edition of each corresponding text, ‘cited at pages 169, 170’ and ‘pages 177-178’ (Skemer 332) respectively. However, as previously
discussed, The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins contains none of the hallmarks of Wycliffite writing.
John Wycliffe was a theologian who wanted to reform the Church during the
fourteenth century. As far as Wycliffe was concerned, it was safe for the Bible to be given to the laity. For Wycliffe suggested, ‘all Christians, and lay lords in particular, ought to know holy writ and to defend it’ (Wycliffe qtd. in McFarlane 77-78). Indeed, Wycliffe believed ‘no man is so rude a scholar but that he may learn the words of the Gospel according to his simplicity’(McFarlane 78). Thus it was of the most importance that the Bible should be accessible to everyone, as Herbert Workman explains, ‘special stress was laid by Wycliffe upon teaching the people the Lord’s Prayer, the Commandments, and the seven deadly sins in their mother tongue (Workman 203). Followers of Wycliffe’s teachings were known as Lollards; MacFarlane describes his first followers as ‘learned popularisers’ who ‘invited the common man to spurn his official pastors and to teach himself heresy; and to help him in the work they translated the Bible and composed simple vernacular statements of the faith’ (McFarlane 2). The defiance of the church was not without its perils; Lollard ‘missionaries and their congregations were a persecuted sect’ (McFarlane 111).
Scribe/Author
Both the author and the scribe of the Garrett MS 143 are unknown, but there can be much speculation given the indirect relation this manuscript has to The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. One could argue that once a scribe adds to a text, he too, becomes an author. This
distinction becomes increasingly difficult in cases such as this one, in which the original author of the original source is unknown. In order to avoid confusion, the term ‘author’ here refers to the person who adapted the text from its lost source, and ‘scribe’ will refer to the person who copied out the text in the manuscript, who may have introduced regional spellings.
Arnold believes the author of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins to be of Wycliffe origin (see Sources), and given the similarities to The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text, it would be tempting to assume that this was true of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text as well. However, this is unlikely, as there is no hard evidence stemming from the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text to make this claim. Wycliffe died in 1384 (McFarlane 1), which serves as evidence that he did not write the text in the Garrett MS 143, since the Garrett MS 143 has been dated to c.1400. But there is the possibility that the author copyied from an original tract or manuscript written by Wycliffe or a Lollard. It is unknown what instructions were given to the scribe when producing the manuscript. He may have chosen to leave out any church slandering when compiling his version of the treatise from the original source. However, as previously mentioned it is unlikely that Nicholas Hereford, the possible author of The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text, is the author of this tract, as several subjects, for example, the Trialogus, are treated differently in both texts (see sources).
The introduction and remedies from the text may be the creation of the author as these sections bear no resemblance to The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text. Additional lines found in The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins, which are not present in The Wycliffite Seven Deadly Sins text could also be the work of the author, but may also be from the scribe. There appears to be no indication of multiple scribes as the style of hand appears to be consistent throughout the manuscript; thus it would appear that this was the work of only one scribe.
Small mistakes are made throughout the treatise such as forgotten words (a full
comparison can be seen in the commentary). There is a possible ‘eye skip’ made by the scribe (see below), but this is rare and the majority of the text appears to have been copied correctly. However, there are at least two examples of the scribe rectifying mistakes made in the The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text section of the manuscript. On 22r recto one can see the following correction (see fig. 19: correction).
Fig. 19: correction
The scribe has chosen to continue onto another line. A clearer example illustrating this is found on 26r (see fig. 20):
Here the scribe has crossed out ‘ee’ (eetynge) and has moved it to the following line. Although the scribe has written over the boundaries before, he is more or less keeps the overall width of the treatise intact by choosing to start the word on a new line.
Audience
The Church was responsible for education in the Middle Ages. Gustaf Holmstedt points to the general standard of knowledge and education at the time: “One of Archbishop Peckham’s Consitutiones in 1281 deals with Ignorantia Sacerdotum, and he says there that the ignorance of the clergy is the source of error in the people whom they are bound to guide, and so directs every priest to explain to his people in their native tongue the elements of faith” (clxxix). As such, it was possible that a text such as this would have been used by a clerk or parish priest to teach the laity.
As previous mentioned, Christians had to attend confession. Peter Biller describes this process: ‘For the lay person confession was to be annual and to their own parish priest. The parish priest tending spiritual ills when hearing confession and imposing penance was compared to a physician tending wounds. He was required to enquire into circumstances of sin and sinner in order to provide right council and remedy’ (Biller 7). As such the
manuscript would have served as handbook for those going to confession, or those seeking penitence.
Another possibility is that this text was used in a monastic context. Bloomfield remarks on the importance of the sins for monks: “The sins arose in an ascetic and monastic environment, and the sins of the flesh and accidie (taedium cordis, as Cassian defines it; or, to put it in other terms, spiritual dryness) are just those sins with which monks had most to struggle. The fleshly temptations are the last to be subdued and the most dangerous to those who have forsaken the world. Hence it was perfectly natural for those sins to be emphasized” (Bloomfield 74). However, the author of The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text has included
some specific types of lechery (1.73 – 1.84), including within marriage, which suggest a lay audience, since monks were not married and bound by a vow of chastity.
Language
Standardisation of the English language had not yet occurred in the Middle Ages, and it is worthwhile to study the aspects of the language found here in the manuscript. One must take into consideration that a discussion of all aspects of the language would be beyong the scope of this project; as such this section will focus on points of interest in regards to spelling, graphemics, punctuation, capitalisation, abbreviation, morphology, and syntax. Much of the language of the manuscript has already been looked at by Pauline Fontein, who gives a lengthy discussion of its morphology in her edition of the Ten Commandments from Garrett MS 143. This section will focus on The Garrett Seven Deadly Sins text.
Spelling
The Garret Seven Deadly Sins text shows a variety of common Middle English spelling variations; the letters, ‘y’ and, ‘i’ are used for different spelling variants for the same word, such as ‘þey’(1.9) and, ‘þei’ (1.9) and ‘Ire’ (1.39) and ‘yre’(1.34) as well as, ‘him’ (1.4) and ‘hym’ (1.44). Doubling of letters can been seen throughout the treatise in words such as, ‘haateful’ (1.29) and ‘hateful’(1.88), ‘goddis’ (1.24) and ‘godis’ (1.34). Another variation in the text occurs in the word ‘enemyes’ (1.2), which appears elsewhere in the text as, ‘ennemyes’ (1.45). A comparison with the Middle English Dictionary (MED) reveals the former to be the most common spelling variant.
Indeed, the diversity of spelling can be as small as one letter such as ‘mysuseþ’(1.24)
remain inside the border. However, these variations appear to be exceptional, for the scribe appears to be consistent on the spelling of most nouns.
Fig. 21: mysuseþ Fig.22: mysusiþ
‘Fourth’ is spelt with two different variants: ‘fourþe’ (1.44) and ‘ferþe’ (1.80)(see fig. 23 and 24). A brief look at the two treatises on the ‘ten commandments’ (both located in the MS), and the ‘5 wittes’ in the manuscript show ‘ferþe’ to be his preferred spelling.
Fig. 23: fourþe Fig. 24: ferþe
According to Fulk ‘e’ and ‘o’ were frequently doubled to indicate vowel length (26); this can be seen in words such as, ‘doon’ (1.32), and ‘moost’ (1.32). However, it was less common when final ‘-e’ is written, since this was already assuming the function of indicating vowel length in the preceding syllable (Fulk 26). Examples of doubling can be found in the manuscript such as, ‘doo’ (1.9), ‘þee’ (1.32), ‘noo’ (1.84), ‘dreede’, (1.4), and ‘diseese’ (1.31), located in the manuscript. These words may be spelling variants or possible scribal mistakes.
The scribe appears consistent with the placing of letter the ‘v’ to represent an initial ‘u’ this can be seen in a variety of words such as. ‘vnweddid’ (1.75), ‘vnkyndeli’ (1.82), ‘vnskillful’ (1.36), vnderstonde’ (1.72), and ‘vnto’ (1.41). There are no instances of ‘u’ in initial position; instead medial position ‘u’ is found in words such as ‘mouynge’ (1.41) and ‘moued’ (1.37), as was common in Middle English texts. As such there are no instances of medial position ‘v’. This is also the case with words such as ‘loue (1.30) and ‘seuene’ (1.23) (For a comparison of each see fig. 25 and 26)
Fig. 25: vnweddid Fig.26 mouynge
There are more instances of ‘þe’ than ‘the’ in the manuscript. However, the scribe makes a habit of writing ‘th’ at the start of a new sentence which can be seen in words such as ‘The’ (1.24) and ‘Thre’ (1.39) (see fig. 27 and 28).
Fig. 27: The Fig. 28: Thre
The scribe makes use of ‘ȝ’ in words such as ‘ȝiftis’ (1.33) and ‘neiȝbore’ (1.52).
